 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Massie v. State5/26/1998
ermination as to the time of death. But I don't think I would say the witness can give an opinion. I think that he can (inaudible) so that the jury can use that information together with all the other information that the evidence (inaudible). Assuming that there's (inaudible) as to perhaps not necessarily the exact time of death but a window that death probably occurred in this window of opportunity."
(Emphasis added).
At this point in the colloquy the State proffered that Kercheval would testify that death occurred approximately three to five hours prior to his examination at 4:15 p.m. The defense again objected on the ground that the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology course taken by Kercheval did not make him a pathologist. The court ruled that Kercheval, based on his observations and what it meant to him as a forensic chemist, could tell the jury "what in his opinion, if he has an opinion, that the death occurred within a certain ... within a window of ... a window of time."
Continued argument by Massie that Kercheval could not say Mrs. Massie was dead for three to five hours prior to his examination led to the statement by the court from which the question presented on certiorari was taken. The court said: "I think that he can ... I'm going to let him if the State wishes to proceed in this fashion, I'm going to let them through this witness I mean there's going to have to be other foundation but ultimately be able to say through this witness ... to present to the jury information through this witness (inaudible) in his opinion the time of death was somewhere between the time of his arrival ... and two hours before ... six hours before.
"I think that it would be helpful to the jury to hear his based on all that he's done in this case. Ask him his experience. For the jury to get an expression from this witness as to the (inaudible) the outer limit of time involved (inaudible)."
The argument continued with the State advancing the following distinction:
"We're not talking pathology in terms of an autopsy. But we are talking about how it portrays at the crime scene and what he viewed with the body. These are niched areas of education and experience."
At that point the court flatly ruled that the State could ask the question: "What is the earliest time of death (inaudible) ... time of death of?" and that the court would overrule Massie's objection to that question.
Examination of Kercheval resumed. He explained algor mortis and the "Glaister equation," a formula for approximating the time of death based on rectal temperature. He admitted that, because he is not a medical examiner, he did not take a rectal temperature of Mrs. Massie. By touch he observed that her extremities were somewhat cool and that her abdominal region was slightly warmer than the room temperature.
Kercheval then explained livor mortis, also known as post-mortem lividity, that is the purplish coloration in the area of the body where blood settles by gravity. He said that the onset of livor mortis is usually visible at around two hours and that it then becomes more intense. He said that " ost mortem lividity becomes fixed somewhere around eight hours after death according to the texts." By being fixed he meant that the purple color would remain even after finger pressure was applied to the area. The post-mortem lividity in Mrs. Massie was not fixed.
Kercheval described observing Mrs. Massie's eyes and noticing a slight film over the cornea, a condition that becomes present "a few hours" after death. He also observed that blood on the victim's face was dried.
Based on these observations, his educati
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Maryland Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|